Talk:Bitch (album)

Nice Life Recording Company or Nice Life

I'm opening up a discussion on here in hopes a discussion on how Nice Life Recording Company should be worded in the lead. I believe it should be worded as "Nice Life Recording Company" @Zirthes: believes it should be worded as "Nice Life". Many sources refer to the label as either or, its own article page is worded in full. Since as long as I've been editing, it's always been heavily known we refer to the record label as their full name (Epic Records - Epic; Republic Records - Republic) in the lead sentence and shortened in the infobox. Also, as this would be no different than how Domino Recording Company is worded on here on its albums articles - which are worded in full. Here are several sources that refer to the label as its full name: Pillowdelight (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion on this @Skyversay:, @Aoi:, @Poydoo:, @Sock:, @Cringechancellor: as you all have made edits on this article? Pillowdelight (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

What I was trying to explain in the discussion on my talk page is that Nice Life is the label, whereas Nice Life Recording Company is the company. What we are saying in the lead is the name of label that the album was released under, not the company. The label is a trademark ("Nice Life") which has been filed by the company Nice Life Recording Company, LLC, as can be found here: To further support this is, on Nice Life's own website it says "Nice Life® is a California-based recording & publishing company founded by artist & producer Ricky Reed" (without "Recording Company"). I also don't think that its appropriate for you to say that you are going to get an admin involved almost immediately and telling me to "leave things alone" which is bordering on what could be considered gatekeeping behaviour. Zirthes (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No where does it state that specifically "Nice Life" is the record label for "Nice Life Recording Company" - you're just assuming. I also wouldn't believe a trademark is a proper source for something like this. I also apologize if you believe I was trying to gatekeep the article which I most certainly wasn't. Majority of your argument is all just your opinion, there's not a single source that states Nice Life is the record label for Nice Life Recording Company which would fall under WP:NOR. Pillowdelight (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

How is the company's (that we are referring to in this discussion) own trademark filing not a proper source when that is literally the whole basis behind the name of the label? It clearly says "Nice Life" (owned by Nice Life Recording Company, LLC). I already gave you many secondary sources where the label is referred to as Nice Life, but here are some more: "Nice Life CEO and co-founder Ricky Reed" "houses the operations of the 33-year-old’s new Atlantic Records imprint, Nice Life". This source in particular does refer to Nice Life as 'Nice Life Recording Company', but it also refers to Atlantic Records as 'Atlantic Recording Corporation', which we obviously don't use in favor of the shortened version 'Atlantic Records'. Zirthes (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, please provide a source that supports your claim that Nice Life is the record label under Nice Life Recording Company - other than its trademark which I personally am not counting. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I also mentioned in my previous comment that multiple sources use both Nice Life and Nice Life Recording Company. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This Billboard interview with Ricky Reed, the founder states: "Now, the Wallpaper frontman and Bay Area native (real name Eric Frederic) will be launching his own Nice Life Recording Co label under Atlantic Records." - that very much states that Nice Life Recording Company is indeed the record label. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no source that explicitly states that "Nice Life" is the label and "Nice Life Recording Company" is the company that owns the label. However, the trademark for the label as a service has been filed as "Nice Life" and shows that "Nice Life Recording Company, LLC" is the owner of the mark, which implies that they are two separate entities. As you have said it has been referred to as both in different sources, but it has also been called "Nice Life Records" and "Nice Life Recording Co" by highly reliable sources. All the sources mentioning the label include the "Nice Life" part with variations in what comes after that. For clarity and consistency I believe that the most appropriate thing to do would be to refer to the label as "Nice Life". This is supported by primary sources including the label's own website and social media. Zirthes (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Social media is not a source. "Co" is just a shortened word for "Company". Pillowdelight (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And what about "Nice Life Records"? Let's not pick and choose what we want to hear. You were originally referring to WP:MOS so per MOS:FIRSTCORP it states that "Aside from in the lead sentence in its own article, use the most common name found in the sources, whenever practical, when referring to an organization or other trademark name in article text". As previously mentioned the label has been referred to by various different names in different sources, so there is no clear version of the name that would be considered common. Additionally, per WP:NCCORP it states that the terms such as "Company" should be included in the title of the article about that company, but there is no specific guideline that states it has to be repeated that way in the prose or in the prose of other articles. In this particular article I adopted "Nice Life" referring to the label before you changed it, and once again, for consistency and clarity, I believe that there is no need to be debating this usage. Zirthes (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the sources use Nice Life Recording Company. I provided 9 sources that back up my claim. Do I need to provide more for you? I really hope other editors join in on this discussion, this is getting nowhere. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The most reliable and relevant sources you cited don't distinguish between Nice Life Recording Company as a company and as a label, they just say "via" or something similar. The Hits source is introducing the company and giving information about it so it would be appropriate to use "Nice Life Recording Company" - this article on Lizzo's new album is not. Finally, the spotify page for the album clearly lists the full names of both labels, since Atlantic Records is referred to as Atlantic Recording Corporation, so by your logic that should also be worded in full here too. Once again, there is inconsistent naming when it comes to the label, so you can't argue that the sources you gave show the most common usage when in these major publications the label is simply referred to as "Nice Life" with no mention at all of "Nice Life Recording Company". Other editors may have a differing view but I honestly don't see any reason to be debating this. Zirthes (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Well in MOS formatting for albums you're supposed to refer to the label by its full name in the lead. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

There is evidence that both "Nice Life" and "Nice Life Recording Company" are used by reliable sources. Absent a clear showing that the longer form is the overwhelmingly common name of the label itself, use of "Nice Life" in album prose is reasonable and consistent with Wikipedia's preference for commonly used names over legal corporate names. Cringechancellor (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

At least for the first mentions within lead and body, use full name for the label. We shouldn't assume all readers would otherwise still know what "Nice Life" is short for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This logic is flawed as there are many labels and companies which do not include "Recording Company" in the name that have names similar to something else. As previously mentioned the label has been referred to as "Nice Life" by multiple sources and the label's own website. I adopted the use of "Nice Life" originally and this has been used in numerous sources. The lead clearly states "It was released through" and then lists the labels so I don't see how this would confuse the reader any more or less than a label such as Human Re Sources in the lead of This Music May Contain Hope. Zirthes (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

We go by what sources call it. Majority of the sources including the Billboard article I provided clearly state "Nice Life Recording Company" when it was very first launched. Human Re Sources is literally just called "Human Re Sources". You and @Cringechancellor: are still fairly new editors. You guys need to realize you're editing an encyclopedia, you need to be descriptive as possible ESPECIALLY in the lead which is intended to grab a readers attention. Simply stating an album was released by Nice Life compared to Nice Life Recording Company would make it seem like the article is telling me to have a nice life. Compared to the wording of Nice Life Recording Company would instantly tell a reader this is a record label/entertainment company. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to show the entire name for the first mention, although I don't like appeal to authority arguments. Cringechancellor (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You didn't provide any more sources that I did, so once again you cannot argue that the majority of sources call it "Nice Life Recording Company". I provided highly reliable sources from Variety, the Los Angeles Times, PopMatters, and the Recording Academy which clearly refer to the label as "Nice Life". The articles you provided do not refer to the label as Nice Life Recording Company other than one source which is an interview with the company about the company, which is not the same as briefly mentioning the label in an album's article on wikipedia. Once again to make myself clear, my argument with Human Re Sources is that nothing about that name indicates it is a record label, so the argument that including "Recording Company" is important to help give the reader context is irrelevant. The pages are wiki-linked for a reason.

The amount of time I have been editing does not mean that I am any more or less knowledgeable than you, so please do not patronize me. You have clearly violated numerous guidelines as WP:ESDOS and WP:CIV in general prior to this discussion by telling me to "leave it alone" and coming on my talk page threatening me with administrator action if I don't. Even if you have had more experience editing than me its not showing at all. Zirthes (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've described "Nice Life Recording Company" as just "Nice Life", in Tinashe's album articles (BB/Ang3l and Quantum Baby). I believe we should use full name in its first mention, only.. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Every single source I provided shows its official name as Nice Life Recording Company. You also need to realize you're currently blocked for edit warring on another article which is why I stated I would get an admin involved as you were border lining the WP:3RR on this article. I am also being civil, every editor who's joined this discussion has also stated it should be named in full. Pillowdelight (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

And every single source I provided shows its name as "Nice Life" so what's your point? You started this with arguing that I was violating MOS by using "Nice Life", when per MOS:FCORP it states that "Aside from in the lead sentence in its own article, use the most common name found in the sources, whenever practical, when referring to an organization or other trademark name in article text". This is the only guideline in MOS that explains how to refer to a company which has been referred to by different names, and all it says is that it should be referred to with its full name in its own article. It says nothing about how it should be referred to in other articles. This would then instead be based on the most common name used in secondary sources, which we have already established that there isn't one since the label has been referred to as "Nice Life" at least an equal amount of times as "Nice Life Recording Company".

As for "Recording Company" providing context, the context is provided by the introductory phrase "It was released through" and furthermore "Atlantic Records" clearly includes the term "Records" which also provides context to the sentence. There are many labels which do not have names that make it clear they are record labels, one of which I have already stated being Human Re Sources, as well as 300 Entertainment, OVO Sound, and Top Dawg Entertainment, among others. If an album was released through Top Dawg Entertainment and the lead said "It was released through Top Dawg Entertainment", does that mean the article is saying the entertainment is top dawg? Obviously not, so let's not reach.

Nice Life's own website refers to the company as just Nice Life, as does its trademark filing, which is supported by numerous secondary sources referring to the company as Nice Life. This all highly supports my choice to adopt the usage "Nice Life" over "Nice Life Recording Company". That is the use that I adopted in this article when I typed out the lead, and it is purely to state the recording company's as is standard in album and song articles - it is not the focus of the article. You came in afterwards and attempted to change it when you have no grounds to do so and then chose to start this discussion. Zirthes (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You carelessly are turning a blind eye to how not every reader knows what "Nice Life" is shorthand for, Zirthes, and it's not like any policies or guidelines say we shouldn't use full name in other articles when first introducing the term. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You are continuously taking the name out of context to support your argument. Context is provided by the fact this is an article about an album by a very well-known singer - why would a reader come to this article expecting for it to be about having a Nice Life? As I previously stated the sentence itself in the lead where the label is mentioned starts with the introductory phrase "It was released through" which is sufficient context on top of the article's context. And on top of both of those things, the label's article is also wiki-linked. To still misunderstand what "Nice Life" is after all of that is more of a reader issue than a problem with the article itself. You say that there is no policy or guideline advising against using the full name of the label in other articles, but there is also no policy of guideline saying that you should, so that statement is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. Zirthes (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Zirthes, everyone who has participated in this discussion has stated it should be worded in full name. Do you not understand that "Recording Company" is merely just another word for "Records" or "Entertainment"? It's showing that Nice Life is indeed a record company. The reason why we HAVE to keep a company like "Human Re Sources" as is because no other sources call it anything else BUT that. We can't just add "Human Re Sources Records" because we want to which is what I'm assuming you’re trying to get at with this. Pillowdelight (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Providing those other label examples was to disprove your argument that including "Recording Company" gives additional context as not every record label includes terms such as "Records" or "Recording Company" in the name, and like you said you would not include "Records" on the end just for context. The sentence as a whole where the labels are mentioned, for the third time, gives context, as well as the context of the article as the whole being an music album. In this particular instance, Nice Life (Recording Company, Records, Recording Co) has been referred to by multiple different names in secondary sources which is unusual for a record label, so I am not saying that this would be the case for every label. Nice Life Recording Company is the name of the Wikipedia article but Wikipedia can't be used as a direct source within itself as we rely on external sources of information. I am supported by the label's literal website which says "Nice Life" as well as the trademark for the label which is filed as "Nice Life". Zirthes (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I've shown 9 different various sources that use "Nice Life Recording Company" as its name. Even when it was first launched it was referred to as its full name. Every editor who’s participated in this discussion has stated it should be worded in full. This should not be this difficult to comprehend at this point. Pillowdelight (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I am going by Wikipedia's official MOS guidelines where as you are just basing it on what you think is correct and taking it completely out of context. This is why I opened a dispute resolution request to get an decisive final take, because it is not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Regardless of what is decided, this discussion is not proving to be productive at this point. Zirthes (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the approach SNUGGUMS suggested: use the full name of the record label for at least the first instance they appear in the lead and body. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC on Label

Should the second sentence of the lead paragraph read:

A. It was released through Nice Life and Atlantic Records on June 5, 2026.

or

B. It was released through Nice Life Recording Company and Atlantic Records on June 5, 2026.

Please enter A to shorten the name of the recording company or B to use the full name of the recording company, or an equivalent, with a brief statement.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)